MN 140, the poignant story about Pukkusati unknowingly meeting the Lord Buddha, is certainly an inspiring, lofty, deep, supramundane & often favourite sutta. But is it fake, i.e., a later addition? MN 140 includes the following Pali sentence, including the words 'paraṃ maraṇā':

They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has come to an end, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it, will become cool right here. Only bodily remains will be left.’ (Sujato)

Now the issue I have with MN 140 is the words "paraṃ maraṇā", which neither Bhikkhus Thanissaro, Bodhi or Sujato appear to have translated. I note how Bhikkhu Sujato's translations of MN 140 and SN 12.51 are identical yet the Pali in these two suttas is not identical, given SN 12.51 does not include the words "paraṃ maraṇā".

I have mentioned before how many suttas say arahants or a Tathagata do not experience "death" ("marana"). Also & importantly, the term "paraṃ maraṇā" appears to be found in suttas about kamma & the rebirth of non-arahants. Rebirth occurs with "paraṃ maraṇā" as a preceding cause.

While I think the translation of "termination of life" for "jīvitapariyādānā" is OK, how can Nibbana occur "paraṃ maraṇā" as described in MN 140?

Any opinions?

There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

While I think the translation of "termination of life" for "jīvitapariyādānā" is OK, how can Nibbana occur "paraṃ maraṇā" as described in MN 140?

Any opinions?

It's a variant reading that seems to have been preferred by the Burmese, at least it's in the Chattha Sangayana edition of the text. It's missing from the PTS edition. Venerable Ñanavira touches upon the point you referred to in his A Note on Paṭiccasamuppāda:

The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks 'my self exists' so he also thinks 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'. The puthujjana sees a 'self' to whom the words birth and death apply.[d] In contrast to the puthujjana, the arahat has altogether got rid of asmimāna (not to speak of attavāda—see MAMA), and does not even think 'I am'. This is bhavanirodha, cessation of being. And since he does not think 'I am' he also does not think 'I was born' or 'I shall die'. In other words, he sees no 'self' or even 'I' for the words birth and death to apply to. This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha. (See, in Kosala Samy. i,3 <S.i,71>, how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of. Atthi nu kho bhante jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā ti. N'atthi kho mahārāja jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja khattiyamahāsālā... brāhmanamahāsālā... gahapatimahāsālā..., tesam pi jātānam n'atthi aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja bhikkhu arahanto khīnāsavā..., tesam pāyam kāyo bhedanadhammo nikkhepanadhammo ti. ('—For one who is born, lord, is there anything other than ageing-&-death?—For one who is born, great king, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those, great king, who are wealthy warriors... wealthy divines... wealthy householders...,—for them, too, being born, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those monks, great king, who are worthy ones, destroyers of the cankers...,—for them, too, it is the nature of this body to break up, to be laid down.')) The puthujjana, taking his apparent 'self' at face value, does not see that he is a victim of upādāna; he does not see that 'being a self' depends upon 'holding a belief in self' (upādānapaccayā bhavo); and he does not see that birth and death depend upon his 'being a self' (bhavapaccayā jāti, and so on). The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see these things, and he sees also their cessation (even though he may not yet have fully realized it); and his seeing of these things is direct. Quite clearly, the idea of re-birth is totally irrelevant here.

It's a variant reading that seems to have been preferred by the Burmese, at least it's in the Chattha Sangayana edition of the text. It's missing from the PTS edition. Venerable Ñanavira touches upon the point you referred to in his A Note on Paṭiccasamuppāda:

This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha... how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of.

OK. Thanks. It appears Venerable Ñanavira would have agreed there is an issue here. One possible explanation (to overcome the fake impression) is the Buddha was speaking to a person (Pukkusati) that did not know the Buddhist teachings; thus the Buddha spoke in the conventional everyday language of his Indian society (although, in reality, the words paraṃ maraṇā used were unnecessary given the words uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā were sufficient).

Possibly try following the topic discussion first. If a sutta says attachment brings liberation or Nirvana is True Self or murdering with hatred leads to heaven then obviously the sutta is fake. Similarly, a sutta saying a arahant is subject to "death" appears fake to students that study with care & have vipassana in meditation. Pulga had no problem with the straightforwardness of the topic & inquiry.

Regards

There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

“The Realized Ones do not ordain those whose bowl and robes are incomplete.”

And then Venerable Pukkusāti approved and agreed with what the Buddha said. He got up from his seat, bowed, and respectfully circled the Buddha, keeping him on his right, before leaving.

But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow took his life. Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him: “Sir, the son of a good family named Pukkusāti, who was advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. Where has he been reborn in his next life?” “Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said.

So if you become arhant on earth world you won't return from it but stay there? makes sense to me. Nice
(if you are familiar with Xian's)

It appears Venerable Ñanavira would have agreed there is an issue here. One possible explanation (to overcome the fake impression) is the Buddha was speaking to a person (Pukkusati) that did not know the Buddhist teachings; thus the Buddha spoke in the conventional everyday language of his Indian society (although, in reality, the words paraṃ maraṇā used were unnecessary given the words uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā were sufficient).

"Kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā" appears repeatedly throughout the Suttas, but as far as I know it is invariably associated with rebirth. Because it is such a common expression, I think "paraṃ maraṇā" was inadvertently added to the Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta in its chanting and thus preserved in some manuscripts.

Thank you friend for your effort but my question was satisfactorily answered by Pulga. Kind regards

There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

So I see no problem that the building block was used here as in other hundreds times in PC.

Hi Sphairos

The building block above is generally in relation to the puthujjhana and not the Arahant. MN 140 is about the Arahant & Nibbana-without-residue.

Regards

There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.